• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is "common sense" gun control?

What is "common sense" gun control?

  • Total voters
    28
jamesrage said:
I agree. Fire arm registrations and gun licenses are used so that later they can confiscate firearms, even in this country. No criminal is going to follow any law they find to be of an inconvenience. So this idea that somehow forcing those who already obey the law to register their firearms and or get licenses for those fire arms is someone how going to affect crime is totally absurd.

NRA-ILA :: Firearms Registration: New York City`s Lesson
Click to expand...

That's why I would not be in favor of mandatory registration of firearms. I would only be in favor of the GID number that I spoke of earlier.
 
Tucker Case said:
That's why I would not be in favor of mandatory registration of firearms. I would only be in favor of the GID number that I spoke of earlier.
Click to expand...

There are over 200-240 million plus firearms in this country,do you really think a number that can easily be filed off be used to help a owner recover his firearm if it was ever stolen? Raid every pawn shop and gun dealer that happens to carry that model of firearm and do a ballistics? test The main reasons for those numbers is to help with registrations


I have a right to | BBC World Service

AMERICANS OWN LARGEST NUMBER OF FIREARMS IN WORLD
 
shiznit770 said:
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said intelligence was the issue. I merely try to make as few assumptions as possible, thus my stream of questions at you (which you continue to dodge).
Click to expand...
Get back to me when you're ready to have the discussion that no one else seems to be having any trouble having.
 
Gibberish said:
How is it an infringement? I am not denying your right to bear arms. I am only making sure you have the right.

No, you undergo the check to make sure you haven't broken the law previously and thus still have the right to own a gun.
Click to expand...

Both of these have been previously addressed.
 
Goobieman said:
Get back to me when you're ready to have the discussion that no one else seems to be having any trouble having.
Click to expand...

No need, someone else explained their argument clearly whereas you failed, repeatedly.
 
faminedynasty said:
How then do you propose we keep guns out of the hands of felons?
Click to expand...
This has been previously addressed.
You cannot restrict someone exercising a right 'just in case' they might be committing a crime when doing do. Doing so is a form of prior restraint, which is an infringement.

As a law abiding citizen I have no problem whatsoever with being subject to a background check to prove that I am. Haven't been wrongfully accused of being a felon yet.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Tell me how you feel about warrantless wiretaps.
 
shiznit770 said:
So how is requiring voter registration any different?
Click to expand...
If you would have bothered to read the thread, you'd know this was addressed. Of course, since it is apparent that you arent interested in an honest discussion...

Voter registration ensures that the voter is voting in the proper place, with the proper ballot. These are inherent to the right to vote, and as such, registration is not a precondition to the exercise of the right to vote that is not inherent to same.
 
TurtleDude said:
Only the instant background check does not violate the second, 9th and tenth amendments.

Proper gun control is a figure 8 grouping on a double tap at 15Yards in 1/4th of a second:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Gun Control is winning the Wimbeldon Cup with a Brown Bess
 
Goobieman said:
If you would have bothered to read the thread, you'd know this was addressed. Of course, since it is apparent that you arent interested in an honest discussion...

Voter registration ensures that the voter is voting in the proper place, with the proper ballot. These are inherent to the right to vote, and as such, registration is not a precondition to the exercise of the right to vote that is not inherent to same.
Click to expand...

You really shouldn't talk about "honest discussion". Every time someone mentions background check you act as if it is to root out future felons.

If you don't support background checks, how do you prevent felons from purchasing firearms?
 
shiznit770 said:
You really shouldn't talk about "honest discussion". Every time someone mentions background check you act as if it is to root out future felons.

If you don't support background checks, how do you prevent felons from purchasing firearms?
Click to expand...
I have answered this question 3 times.

And, I noticed you didnt counter my voter registration argument.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
I think an issue comes into play regarding what is "common sense". I think evveryone can agree by the results that "Banning guns from felons and the mentaly infirm" with over 80% of voters agreeing on it falls into that category.

But what about the near 50% responses. Is that common sense? Or is that a dichotomy on views? I would lean towards the latter.
Click to expand...
"Common sense" necessitates that there is some degree of 'sense' to begin with.

To determine that, you have to ask yourself:
-What is the objective at hand?
-Does the item in question achieve that objective?
-Does the item in question harm others while achieving that objective?
 
Goobieman said:
I have answered this question 3 times.

And, I noticed you didnt counter my voter registration argument.
Click to expand...

I didn't counter because you brought up a good point and I agree, there are differences which make my comparison wrong.
 
rsixing said:
Excuse me if this question has been asked since I'm at work and unable to read the whole thread...

I'm curious how we separate the law abiding from the convicted felon without a background check when it comes to purchasing a weapon?

Let me know when you figure that out.
Click to expand...
You are right -- this has been asked and answered.

You think you can use the law to keep people from breaking the law -- that is, that you can pre-empt crime. In this case, the crime is the illegal purchase of a firearm.

The entire concept behind prior restraint is that you cannot infringe on the rights of people 'because they might' commit a crime, or 'just in case' they commit a crime -- you have to wait until they actually DO commit a crime before you can act.

You then enforce the law that was broken and punish the person that broke it.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
You think you can use the law to keep people from breaking the law -- that is, that you can pre-empt crime. In this case, the crime is the illegal purchase of a firearm.
Click to expand...

There's another crime involved. The illegal sale of a firearm.

That is the crime that can be prevented by background checks, IMO. It's not on eht ebuyer, it's on the seller.

The only disqualification for the sale would be if the buyer is inelligable.

Think if it like carding in order to sell liquor.

The right to bear arms is a right, the right to distribute arms for profit is not a right.

That's the only point of contention I would make in favor of background checks.

It is not on the purchaser, it is on the seller.
 
Thus, I should add, the prior restraint is on the seller, not the purchaser. It is not prior restreaint on a right.
 
Tucker Case said:
There's another crime involved. The illegal sale of a firearm.
That is the crime that can be prevented by background checks, IMO. It's not on eht ebuyer, it's on the seller.
Click to expand...
I believe the legal requirement is that the seller cannot sell to anyone that he has a reasonable suspicion of not being able to legally own a firearm. His recourse then is to not sell the firearm.

The right to bear arms is a right, the right to distribute arms for profit is not a right.
Click to expand...
Correct.
 
Goobieman said:
I believe the legal requirement is that the seller cannot sell to anyone that he has a reasonable suspicion of not being able to legally own a firearm. His recourse then is to not sell the firearm.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if the Laws can read that if the seller has not used all the resources available to him to determine the eligibility of the purchaser, then he is in violation of the law.

The law can be written as such that anyone who chooses to not receive the background check must be assumed to be a felon unless otehr evidence is given proving otherwise.

Much like an ID in a bar. If the person refuses to show ID, then the assumption must be made by the bar owner that the person is inelligable for alcohol even if they appear to be over the age.

Backround checks would only need be perfromed at most once per year.

The major issue against background checks, as I see it, is that they can be used to track who gets weapons and of what type.

Admittedly, that's a bit sketchy, as far as I'm, concerned. Maybe felons should have an "F" for felon placed somewhere on their ID cards that alerts the gun sellers of their ineligability. Then all that would be needed is to show valid ID and if there is no "F", then the person is legal. That way, any felons caught with a fake ID for the purpose of getting firearms can be prosecuted for another felony, and legal gun owners won't be faced with the potential evils inherent in background checks?

Any thoughts on that idea?
 
Tucker Case said:
Yeah, but if the Laws can read that if the seller has not used all the resources available to him to determine the eligibility of the purchaser, then he is in violation of the law.
Click to expand...
Except that the resource isnt available if it infringes on the right of the purchaser.

The law can be written as such that anyone who chooses to not receive the background check must be assumed to be a felon unless otehr evidence is given proving otherwise.
Click to expand...
So, when you want to exercise a right, you're considered guilty until proven innocent?

Much like an ID in a bar. If the person refuses to show ID, then the assumption must be made by the bar owner that the person is inelligable for alcohol even if they appear to be over the age.
Click to expand...
I would agree that if you refuse to show your ID, you cannot buy a gun.

The major issue against background checks, as I see it, is that they can be used to track who gets weapons and of what type.
Click to expand...
This is true, and is why federal law requires the records to be destroyed after a short time (30 days?).

Admittedly, that's a bit sketchy, as far as I'm, concerned. Maybe felons should have an "F" for felon placed somewhere on their ID cards that alerts the gun sellers of their ineligability. Then all that would be needed is to show valid ID and if there is no "F", then the person is legal.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the ACLU would protest.
Otherwise, it would work just fine.
 
Goobieman said:
Except that the resource isnt available if it infringes on the right of the purchaser.


So, when you want to exercise a right, you're considered guilty until proven innocent?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that's how it works outside of a court often enough. Such as with ID in bars.


I would agree that if you refuse to show your ID, you cannot buy a gun.


This is true, and is why federal law requires the records to be destroyed after a short time (30 days?).


I'm sure the ACLU would protest.
Otherwise, it would work just fine.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the ACLU picks some battles that ain't worth it sometimes. Even better, Create a database of all the registered felons (like the Sex-pradator database) for everyone who is prevented form owning a firearm. Let the selller crossreference the ID with that data base, in house, no records kept, and if the ID shows a red flag, no gun.

Then, have the database get updated monthly.

It's not a background check, its just checking to see if the ID fits the negative database.


So the gun purchaser shows their ID. The seller looks in the data base for that particulat ID # and if it shows up, no sale. If it doesn't, sale.

It prevents any infringement on the purchaser and also prevents the illegal sale of firearms.

I'm liking this idea, actually.
 
Goobieman said:
You are right -- this has been asked and answered.

You think you can use the law to keep people from breaking the law -- that is, that you can pre-empt crime. In this case, the crime is the illegal purchase of a firearm.

The entire concept behind prior restraint is that you cannot infringe on the rights of people 'because they might' commit a crime, or 'just in case' they commit a crime -- you have to wait until they actually DO commit a crime before you can act.

You then enforce the law that was broken and punish the person that broke it.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I will go back as time allows and read the responses.
 
Tucker Case said:
Yeah, the ACLU picks some battles that ain't worth it sometimes. Even better, Create a database of all the registered felons (like the Sex-pradator database) for everyone who is prevented form owning a firearm. Let the selller crossreference the ID with that data base, in house, no records kept, and if the ID shows a red flag, no gun.

Then, have the database get updated monthly.

It's not a background check, its just checking to see if the ID fits the negative database.
Click to expand...
As long as the check isnt required by law, that's OK.
 
Goobieman said:
As long as the check isnt required by law, that's OK.
Click to expand...

What if it required by law for the seller? I don't see how that is a presumption of ghuilt or a violation of rights.

Maybe I'm missing something in my logic.

Let's say that the seller doesn't check, but he sells the weapon anyway. That person who purchased the weapon would only be guilty of a crime if they are a felon (possesion of an unlawful weapon). But the seller would be guilty of not checking the ID. They could be punished for this, much like not asking for ID when selling Cigarrette's is a crime.

The purchaser holds no obligations, but the seller does.

I don't see how that would be a constitutional violation. Technically the seller could choose to violate this law, and the purchaser is unaffected.
 
Tucker Case said:
What if it required by law for the seller? I don't see how that is a presumption of ghuilt or a violation of rights.
Click to expand...
If its required by law, then its no different than a normal background check -- either way, the law requires the buyer to wait to exercise his right.
 
Goobieman said:
If its required by law, then its no different than a normal background check -- either way, the law requires the buyer to wait to exercise his right.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm... I see this one as being a little bit grayer than normal. The law technically doesn't require the buyer to do anyhting excpet show ID. The ID number is entered into the closed system database and then the the notice comes up clear or felon. It should be no longer than 10-15 seconds real time considering that there would not be any tranfer of information outside of the gun shop.

There is no requirement on the purchaser outside of showing ID, and there is no presumption of guilt.

I think if this were implemented, I would support it on the grounds that it is prevention of the illegal sale of weapons and does not create any punishment or real impediment (such as invasion of privacy that occurs from a full background check) for law abiding citizens. All it does is confirm that which is assumed (that they are law abiding).

I see it as OK because:

1. It could legitimately prevent felons form getting guns
2. It could not prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining weapons.
3. It places the burden on the sellers, not the buyers.


It would probably be easier in the long run to just put the "F" on the ID for felons though and make people show ID to purchase weapons. If the ACLU was against that, screw em. It's no different than the sexual predator database.
 
Tucker Case said:
Hmmmm... I see this one as being a little bit grayer than normal. The law technically doesn't require the buyer to do anyhting excpet show ID. The ID number is entered into the closed system database and then the the notice comes up clear or felon. It should be no longer than 10-15 seconds real time considering that there would not be any tranfer of information outside of the gun shop.
Click to expand...
Aside from the transfer of information ourside the shop (which is irrelevant), this doesnt at all differ from a norman NICS check.
In both cases, the state requires that the buyer wait while an actor of the state checks his background. Its still prior restraint.

It would probably be easier in the long run to just put the "F" on the ID for felons though and make people show ID to purchase weapons
Click to expand...
.
I would very much be OK with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom